Since the 9/11 attacks, U.S. policy-makers have shown a renewed
appreciation for the importance of homeland security and how it
fits into our defense of the nation as a whole. But this
appreciation doesn't always translate into action.

Take the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that Congress mandates
for the Department of Defense (DoD). It has yet to establish any
such requirement for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or
to create a means to review how the two departments fit together in
the overall national security effort.

By clearly defining agency functions, both the DoD and DHS can
minimize overlap and focus on known responsibilities. Furthermore,
such an overview would define the security roles of agencies beyond
DoD and DHS and help ensure they don't perform duties better
carried out by other governmental entities.

The QDR has been used to shape and explain defense policies,
military strategy, decisions about how our forces are structured
and resources allocated. Yet, three significant problems still
plague the QDR process:

Congress doesn't receive an independent assessment of the
Defense Department's analysis. In conjunction with the first QDR,
Congress created a National Defense Panel, an independent panel of
defense intellectuals and national security experts, to review the
results. No such independent assessments have been required of the
two QDRs since, and none will be forthcoming later this year, when
the Pentagon completes its fourth such review.

The QDR leads Congress and the administration to place too
much emphasis on military instruments to meet national-security
challenges at home and abroad. Expanding the process to homeland
security and its relationship to the defense apparatus would ensure
that all U.S. national security instruments are adequate,
complementary and properly integrated.

Even when the QDR identifies areas in need of improvement, DoD
alone can't say how national security issues should be addressed
across multiple agencies nor influence how other federal agencies
should change to meet these challenges.

The National Defense Panel provided an overall assessment of the
nation's national security during the first QDR. But since then,
defense reviews and assessments of other security needs have not
been linked.

The failure to do so can be deadly. In 1998, President Bill
Clinton's administration and Congress established a U.S. Commission
on National Security/21st Century to conduct a broad national
assessment similar to the National Defense Panel. But the
commission's reports weren't linked to the QDR. Its results were
largely ignored - even though it predicted terrorist attacks on the
scale of 9/11 and foresaw the need for a Department of Homeland
Security.

Nowhere is the need for a detailed assessment on the scale of
the QDR more important than in homeland security. "DHS 2.0:
Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security," a report by The
Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, clearly establishes the need for Congress to re-evaluate
DHS roles and resources and how they fit with other federal
domestic security efforts.

In addition, Congress needs to undertake a post-9/11 assessment
of the nation's security apparatus, particularly U.S. public
diplomacy and foreign assistance programs, the defense industrial
base, the intelligence community and the use of space.
Specifically, Congress should:

Establish a requirement for periodic reviews for homeland
security. Congress should require DHS to conduct quadrennial
reviews of the department's strategies, force structure, resources
and threat assessments. The Quadrennial Homeland Security review
should coincide with the midpoint of the presidential term. The
first such review should be tasked to address roles, missions,
authorities and resources.

Create a one-time National Security Review Panel. In parallel
with the first Quadrennial Homeland Security review, Congress
should establish a nonpartisan National Security Review Panel to
provide an independent assessment of the security review and an
overall assessment of national security programs and strategies.
The panel should place particular emphasis on evaluating the
compatibility of the security review with the QDR and the state of
other essential security instruments such as public diplomacy, the
defense industrial base, and the use of space for national security
purposes.

We've already seen - and paid - the price for overlooking
homeland security. Let's not let that happen again.

James Jay Carafano is a
senior research fellow for defense and homeland security at The
Heritage Foundation.